Uninsured driver in lane change collision denied costs

A driver who had no motor insurance has been unsuccessful in efforts to have an insurer pay the cost of repairing damage to his car after colliding with its policyholder.

Versions of what happened during the October 2020 collision varied, though both were consistent with the damage. No objective information such as a police report, camera footage or an independent witness was available to support either account.

Insurance Manufacturers of Australia, a joint venture between IAG and RACV, assessed the circumstances of the accident and decided each party should bear their own costs, declining the uninsured man’s claim to have his repair expenses paid.

The uninsured motorist took the matter to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), saying the other driver was at fault and his damage costs should therefore be covered under their policy.

AFCA said the available information did not show, on balance, that the policyholder was wholly responsible for the accident, and the insurer’s offer to settle the claim as “each bear own” was fair in the circumstances.

“As the complainant is claiming for damage to his car, he must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the insured driver was at fault for the accident. The insurer is only liable once the complainant has shown that the insured driver caused the accident,” AFCA said.

“Information does not show that the insured driver was at fault.”

In the uninsured man’s version, he said he was travelling in the middle lane and the insured driver was in the left lane, which was ending, and collided with the rear left of his car while attempting to merge.

He provided a diagram of the accident, photos of damage to his car and map images showing where the accident occurred.

In Insurance Manufacturers of Australia’s version, the man moved from the third lane to the first lane without signalling and hit the right side of its customer’s car on approach to a red light. It noted the left-hand lane did not end until 160 metres past that traffic light intersection.

AFCA said it was not able to determine that the other driver was at fault for the accident and so it was not satisfied the uninsured man had met his onus to show the policyholder caused the accident.

“The accounts of the circumstances of the accident from the complainant and the insured driver are conflicting. There is no objective information … to support either version of the accident. Both versions are consistent with the damage profile,” the ruling said.

AFCA said the insurer’s offer to not pursue the man for damage to the other car was “fair in all the circumstances.”

“I am not satisfied the complainant has established that the insured driver was at fault for the accident,” AFCA’s ombudsman said. “The insurer is therefore entitled to decline the complainant’s claim for damage to his car.”

See the full ruling here.